It’s the kind of feel-good story that happens in movies. A school district leader in a high-needs community answers the phone to find out that a massive, unexpected financial gift is on its way. No strings attached.
Three years ago, leaders in over a dozen high-poverty districts got that call. They learned, out of the blue, that their district had been awarded a multi-million-dollar gift from philanthropist MacKenzie Scott. None had applied.
Chicago Public Schools landed $25 million. Another $20 million went to each of the school districts of Cleveland; Fresno; Jefferson County, Kentucky; and Detroit. Durham; Killeen, Texas; and Tacoma districts got $18 million apiece. Grand Prairie, Texas, and Escondido Union, California each got $16 million. Gifts of under $10 million each went to a handful of smaller districts.
District officials enthused: “We just hit the lottery.” “The sky’s the limit here.” “Game-changing.” “Sort of like Santa Claus.”
Three years later, how has it all played out? By any measure, it’s been a mixed bag. The lucky districts tend to fall into one of three groups:
Best case: About a third of the districts made thoughtful plans and spent their money accordingly. Tacoma, for example, is portioning out the funds over a decade on after-school enrichment and jobs programs for students.
Worst case: Another third made plans that were derailed by mismanaged district finances. After dreaming big, each of these districts ended up using remaining grant funds to plug self-inflicted budget holes. In each case, the leader who was responsible for the botched finances is long gone, leaving the community to bicker over the whole experience.
Deferred case: In the final third, the money simply got parked for a few years while leaders attended to other pressing issues. Thus far, no one has benefited.
To be fair, Scott was clear that this was a different kind of giving, one where the grant doesn’t come with any prescribed expectations. “I can share what I have with them to stand behind them as they speak and act for themselves.” Education Week wondered whether this new type of grantmaking would inspire other philanthropies.
If so, there are some lessons from Scott’s giving. She aimed to “advance the opportunities of people in underserved communities,” but giving to a school district isn’t the same thing as giving to a community. Most districts are led by volunteer boards who defer spending decisions to a superintendent (many of whom do not have long-term ties to the region). In Detroit, that arrangement worked well: leaders funded tutoring programs for students, the community seems happy about its impact, and the district’s finances are in order.
But in many large districts, the superintendent is essentially a temporary resident. (All but two of the original superintendents have since turned over.) Take Durham’s supe, who, after accidentally overpaying staff, moved to Buffalo, leaving behind a multimillion-dollar deficit. Now a new supe (from Kansas) has been tapped to clean up the mess.
Some leaders lack the financial skills to manage large one-time gifts. Like lottery winners who overspend and end up bankrupt, district leaders, too, can mismanage funds or underestimate recurring obligations. Cleveland’s superintendent (now gone) overspent so much that his successor had little choice but to use the balance of the gift to cover gaping budget holes.
